If you had told me 40 years ago that the body of Christ was going to compromise the Word of God by endorsing teachings that contradict the foundational book of the Bible, the book of Genesis, I would not have believed you. Sadly, over the decades leading up to the 21st century, we have seen many Christian intellectuals take stands that agree with the billions of years or deep time that serve as the foundation for the Theory of Evolution. This is based on the premise that given enough time primordial goo can become you.

During this time, groups like BioLogos have gained traction as the University of Chicago professor Greg Cootsona (2018) notes.

BioLogos represents a leading voice for integrating "mere Christianity" with mainstream science. Having taught science and faith in congregational and academic settings over the past two decades, I continually look to BioLogos for the most effective ways to engage a biblically-informed, Christ-centered faith with the rigors and discoveries of science, all as a way of appreciating this beautiful creation and an even more glorious Creator.

THE BOOK OF GENESIS CLEARLY STATES THAT ALL LIFEFORMS REPRODUCE “AFTER THEIR OWN KIND.” (GENESIS 1)

While distinguishing themselves from Evolutionism, Creationism and the Intelligent Design Movement, these professing believers not only marry standard deep time views of evolutionism, but also attempt to couple the similarities between all living organisms with the biblical account. Never mind that the book of Genesis clearly states that all lifeforms reproduce “after their own kind.” This is what we see in nature, but these intellectual elites ignore this universal truth of biology. They assume the “fact” of common ancestry in the evolutionary scheme that is not in evidence in the world around us. This is not evidence of Darwinian evolution, but rather common design by our Creator. But BioLogos stands against the Intelligent Design movement as well as Creationism.

A good example of the intellectual dishonesty is the evolutionary explanation for sight. One scholar puts it this way. The problem with this is that sight is not a simple process by any means. A cursory review of what evolutionary scientists give for the evolution of the eye border on the absurd. Here is the example commonly put forth by Professors of modern biology Land & Nilsson (2012) who promote the following.

""An important cue for understanding eye evolution is the distinction between different types of photoreceptor cells. Salvini-Plawen and Mayr (1977) noted a remarkable diversity of photoreceptor cell morphology across the animal kingdom, and suggested that photoreceptors evolved independently numerous times."

Does anyone really think you can connect the dots between photoreceptor cells in primitive bacteria and plants with the evolutionary development of a retina and other features of the compound eye in all its various forms? Is it credible to believe that the mechanisms of evolution are capable of causing the individual parts of a compound eye to develop the ability to work perfectly together resulting in sight, not once but several times independent from one another? Just because evolutionary scientists can assume facts that are not in evidence concerning the evolution of sight, this does not make it so.

We have evidence that sight is a common feature of the Creator’s design for many lifeforms. Because evolutionists cannot connect the different development of sight in fish and marine mammals, insects and terrestrial mammals, they make up a term “convergent evolution” to explain it. Other examples of convergent evolution besides sight is flight in birds, bats, dinosaurs and insects. The phylogenetic evidence of convergent evolution is camera eyes between humans and octopuses.

The assumption by our evolutionary counterparts that the various parts of the eye can somehow develop and interact one with the other in truth really does strain credulity. It is part of the tautology of evolutionary science. Natural selection implies the survival of the fittest when it is only the fittest that will survive. This concept cannot be falsified and the history of evolutionary thought relies heavily upon it.

When examining the different components of the compound eye, it becomes clear that another nemesis of Darwinian evolution, irreducible complexity, is also a relevant criticism of the theoretical underpinning of evolutionary thought.

Irreducible complexity a term coined by the Discovery Institute’s Michael Behe (1995) who defines it as just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.

Creationists and the proponents of Intelligent Design are often criticized for making arguments against Darwinian evolution base upon credibility. In fact, because Darwinian Evolution has so completely taken over the secular scientific community and they are making inroads into the evangelical community, all evidence against it has been suppressed. Never mind that some of the most prominent evolutionists have concluded that the mechanisms of Darwinian theory, natural selection and beneficial genetic mutation, are insufficient to provide the changes demanded by the Theory of Evolution. (Mazur, 2010) This trend in intellectual honesty among some of the evolutionary faithful is not new. But most of their voices have been met with the scientific equivalent to the McCarthyism of the 1950’s. (Stein & Miller, 2008)

The example of convergent evolution goes well beyond the evolution of sight. Flight among insects, birds, butterflies and bats, etc. are all examples of convergent evolution. The dolphin, a mammal, and the shark, a fish, are examples of divergent evolution. Because both sharks and dolphins have evolved specific analogous traits — streamlined bodies, dorsal fins, pectoral fins and flippers — to achieve the same goal, which is to swim quickly through the ocean and catch prey. In a nutshell, the concept of goal achievement is pretty much the essence of convergent evolution. (Leary, 2016)

In their own words, evolutionists tell us “the concept of goal achievement is pretty much the essence of convergent evolution.” Sight is necessary in higher organisms, hence if must of evolved independently several times over the billions of years of the deep time of modern evolutionary thought. Fish and marine mammals thrive in the same environment; hence they require a common “marine friendly” design. How different is this from a common design by a common designer for a similar purpose or outcome?

Between BioLogos and popular deep time author and public speaker, Hugh Ross, the evolutionary principles of deep time have gained traction in the evangelical community. Do not be deceived. As one of the founders of the creationist movement, the late Henry Morris, Ph.D., has so eloquently proclaimed:

Evolution Is Not Happening Now… Evolution Never Happened in the Past.

When the opponents of the God of the Bible attack us for what we believe, simply ask them for the proof of what they proclaim. Small changes within biblical kinds, e.g. speciation, is not evidence for molecules-to-men Darwinian evolution. Do not be deceived, the fact that there are similarities between different lifeforms is not evidence of common descent, but rather common design by the Designer of all things.

He is the Maker of heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them-- he remains faithful forever. Psalm 146:6 NIV

On the death of Neo-Darwinism, Lynn Margulis, geoscientist (symbiosis), University of Massachusetts, Amherst, US and Oxford University, UK is also included in Mazur’s book.

“She [Lynn Margulis] sees natural selection as ‘neither the source of heritable novelty nor the entire evolutionary process’ and has pronounced Neo-Darwinism ‘dead’, since there’s no adequate evidence in the literature that random mutations result in new species” (p. 257).

Lynn Margulis reveals how the established worldview (evolution) enforces unity within its ranks:

“People are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of “truth”— scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders” (Lynn Margulis, p. 275).